JAGADISH DEBBARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the detenu, Jagdish Debbarma @ Jester, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus and other writ(s) for quashing the order of detention, dated 02.04.2003 (Annexure P -1) passed by the respondent No. 2 in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") with a view to preventing him from indulging in any activities in a manner prejudicial to the public order within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate, West Tripura.

(2.) SINCE we decide to dispose of this writ petition on a narrow campus, we straightway record the undisputed material facts as emerged from the writ petition and the counter affidavit filed by the State respondents. The respondent No. 2 issued the detention order, dated 2.4.2003 (Annexure -P/1) of the petitioner, which was approved by the State Government on 8.4.2003 (Annexure -R/2) on which date it also reported to the Central Government the fact of its approval of the said detention with the grounds of detention and other relevant papers sent by, speed post subsequently. Though the order of detention was issued and "served" upon the petitioner on 2.4.2003, he was actually detained by executing the impugned order of detention, only on 30.9.2003 vide para 15 of the counter affidavit and the letter, dated 20.10.2003 of the respondent No. 2 at Annexure -R/3. By the letter, dated 17.10.2003 (Annexure -R/5) and the order, dated 17.10.2003 (Annexure -R/5), the matter was placed before:the Advisory Board for its consideration. By the letter, dated 7.11.2003 (Annexure -R/6), the report of the Advisory Board approving the detention was sent to the State -respondents. Thereafter, the State Government confirmed the impugned detention order vide the order, dated 12.11.2003, at Annexure -A/8. The counter affidavit of the State -respondents was not sworn by the detaining authority, i.e., the District Magistrate, but by the Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Home Department. There has been a delay of about 6 months in executing the detention order against the petitioner.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, we may reproduce hereunder the provisions of Sections 8(4), 8 and 10 of the Act : -